Paying monthly for Photoshop may be good for you

Here’s hoping you’re not fully and deeply committed to paying for software once, because that business model is clearly headed out the door. Its demise may even be in your best interest.

On Monday, Adobe announced that the current version of its Creative Suite package would be the last. The company will update Creative Suite 6 for compatibility with the next releases of Microsoft’s Windows and Apple’s OS X, but that will be it.

Instead, Adobe will focus its development efforts on Creative Cloud, versions of its content-creation software that require a subscription. If you want access to the latest versions of Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, InDesign, Premiere Pro and other popular titles, you’ll soon be paying by the month.

Of course, Adobe’s not the first to do this. Microsoft recently began moving to a subscription model by pushing Office 365, a services-based version of its productivity suite, at consumers. In Microsoft’s case, you can still buy a copy of Office that doesn’t require a subscription, but the usage terms clearly favor the subscription version. For example, the single-copy license only lets you install Office 2013 on one computer, while Office 365 allows you to install it on up to 5 PCs for $99 a year.

The knee-jerk reaction to subscription-based software is going to be one of resentment. At first blush, paying by the month or the year for the right to use a program seems like a ripoff. But, depending on the kind of user you are, it may be a bargain.

If you’re the type who stays up to date with programs, updating when new releases are out, subscriptions can save you money. For example, Adobe has tended to do major updates for its software about every two years. If you want to buy a standalone copy of Photoshop CS6, the list price is $700 (though there are plenty of ways to get discounts).

If you use the full Creative Suite, the savings are similar – at least, if you are the kind of user who upgrades regularly. If you have a version of Creative Suite 3 or later, you’ll pay $29.95 for the full suite of Creative Cloud apps for the first year, or about $360. That goes up to $49.99 if you continue in the second year, which is about $600. The full version of Creative Suite 6 lists for $1,300, though there are other packages that are priced as high as $2,600.

The savings vanish, though, if you are the kind of user who holds off on upgrading for years. If you wait three, four or more years before you’d normally upgrade, you’ll end up spending more than you would if you bought the software outright.

Moving to a subscription-based business model makes sense for big software companies, because it makes their revenue more reliable. When they release software every two years, developers ride crests and valleys of income streams. With subscriptions, the money flows in at a steady level.

But it may or may not make sense for users. I have a feeling that Creative Suite 6 is going to be the last version of Adobe’s programs that a lot of people and companies buy – it could turn out to be Adobe’s Windows XP. There will be resistance, but in the long run, this is where the software business is headed, and resistance is futile.

Update: An Adobe spokesperson points out that there is a plan that does not require an annual contract – but it’s a lot more expensive. You can use the full suite for $74.99 a month, or a single program for $29.99, on a month-by-month basis.

63 Responses

Not true. All of the designers and developers I know are pros, and pay for their tools.

In my case, I *did* pirate the software back when I was learning it and just messing around. Once I turned pro, I convinced the IT department of company I work for to dump FrontPage *shudder* for web development and go with Macromedia suite of software. So my initial piracy turned in to tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands over the years) of dollars in revenue for Macromedia, and later Adobe.

Not “continuous”, but “You will need to be online when you install and license your software. If you have an annual membership, you’ll be asked to connect to the web to validate your software licenses every 30 days. However, you’ll be able to use products for 180 days even if you’re offline.”

I own the latest version of Photoshop and it is not that expensive to stay current. I do have a big problem with using a cloud for working with my proprietary photographs. I do not trust Adobe to protect my copyrighted work.

I can store my images locally yes, but using Web enabled (re cloud) software makes an image copied/stored on their servers while you are editing. I will not use this technology. There are similar image editing softwares like this already and professional photographers I know will not use it. Perhaps ADOBE will be different. I will only use software which can run on my system without “the cloud”.

But seriously, they are probably adopting the subscription/monthly model because shelling out $thousands of dollars for a single software package just is not practical. I use a variety of freeware and older software packages and they do the job just fine. There are always alternatives, Photoshop might be the best, but it doesn’t mean I can’t do what I need to do with Paint Shop Pro or a myriad of utilities (or even an older version of Photoshop).

most of my artist friends run SAI (free), Paint Shop Pro from Corel (70$), or Open Canvas from portal graphics (50$). The only ones I know using Photoshop only use it at work, since bringing a copy home is a firing offense. However, even those running Photoshop at work are convincing management that they know better programs that do the same for less money, and have fewer bugs than PS. So Photoshop’s shining moment in the sun has come and gone.

They need to offer a home user option so the twice a year user can buy access to their whole smear for a couple of dollars for a day or a week maybe. Like $2 or $3…then we don’t have to buy the software anymore but can still have total access when and if we ever need it. And offering us access to the total package gives us a chance to use it to see what it is and might bring us back more often. I would rather bring in a couple of bucks than have nothing from many thousands of potential short time users.

Personally (and I don’t use PS) I think it will be fine, the photo community hs been buzzing awhile about this. most of the initial grumbling has died down once the prices were published and most seem to be fine with it. As long as the price is reasonable most seem to think that it saves a lot of hassle. $20/month is not much for a professional photog, at least those operating the in the black. It seems many are using Lightroom instead of the full PS anyway, not sure how LR is affected by this.

It will certainly be good for Adobe’s competitors. We’re still using CS4 here at the office because it does what we need, and we don’t need the bells and whistles of the latest and greatest CS5, 5.5, and then 6. And the great part is, we paid for it, and we can use it indefinitely. Budgeting a license for each user for a year means we can’t do capital budgeting the same way vs expenditure budgeting, and we’re tied to them in order to use our software. That’s a complete dealbreaker for us. Adobe’s notorious for pushing out patches with bugs and being slow to get around to fixing them. This way, we’d be paying extra for the latest bugs all the time.

“There will be resistance, but in the long run, this is where the software business is headed, and resistance is futile.”
===
I think that businesses and people making money from sales of software generated product might, but for the mass-market other vendors bringing the same tools at low cost to the occasional user will bring in more competition in the long run. When those vendors start to nibble at the core users of the “high-end” likely they will have to buy them out, or offer a sub-package.

First off, I like most artists and I don’t cheat. Adobe could have went to key fob for hacks or created something else. Adobe elected to use this subscription method, because they want more! $4.6 billion annually isn’t not enough; so, now like gangsters, record companies, and collegiate and professional sports they want money every month. For what? Protection? Or the privilege to use the stuff? They want a piece of my work, my efforts, so they can show up to tradeshows and tout how their software is democratizing the world. How is that possible at $50 a month? They has already stop printing the software user manual. And many of the upgrades between the versions were not worth the price they were asking. The upgrades were rushed and quirky causing driver conflicts, which required long downloads once there was a fix. In my case, I have a super small studio at commercial location with no internet on site; so I would have to pay for a commercial internet connection (expensive), plus the Adobe subscription fee $50, just to make a $800 wedding video seemingly using the same software I have today in CS6. That is sucks. .

I’m having the same knee-jerk reaction you mentioned, but this came up at our company about six months ago. Our graphic designers seem to be perfectly comfortable with Creative Cloud. Honestly, it might not be that bad- and the upgrades really are a big deal when you’re in business, and the file format changes. Sometimes you have no choice but to upgrade.

Oh, I get it, paying for something monthly that used to be available for a one-time purchase is good for me. Sort of like my modem. I could purchase it for $60 and keep it for say 8 years, or, I can lease it for $10 a month with the promise a replacement service plan in the event anything goes wrong. Sounds fair and good for me!

I suppose other “good things” are airline baggage fees, seat fees, fees at banks for checking accounts, atm fees… you know, things that used to be basically free but now have a convenience fee just for me – the customer.

First off, I like most artists and I don’t cheat. Adobe could have went to key fob for hacks or created something else. Adobe elected to use this subscription method, because they want more! $4.6 billion annually isn’t not enough; so, now like gangsters, record companies, and collegiate and professional sports they want money every month. For what? Protection? Or the privilege to use the stuff? They want a piece of my work, my efforts, so they can show up to tradeshows and tout how their software is democratizing the world. How is that possible at $50 a month? They has already stop printing the software user manual. And many of the upgrades between the versions were not worth the price they were asking. The upgrades were rushed and quirky causing driver conflicts, which required long downloads once there was a fix. In my case, I have a super small studio at commercial location with no internet on site; so I would have to pay for a commercial internet connection (expensive), plus the Adobe subscription fee $50, just to make a $800 wedding video seemingly using the same software I have today in CS6. This is greed – pure and simple.

I use photo editing software maybe twice a year, honestly, so a monthly subscription is not something I would consider. Additionally, my phone came with an amazing camera, and photo editing software, and has the functionality that I need. For the few times I need a PC based photo editor, I found Photo POS Pro, free from download.com. I upgrade my OS rarely, although I keep my current OS updated.My mal ware/spyware/antivirus programs are all free, as well.

So, this is not something that I’d use, personally. But I can see where professionals might find it a good thing. =)

Moving to a subscription-based business model makes sense for big software companies, because it makes their revenue more reliable. When they release software every two years, developers ride crests and valleys of income streams. With subscriptions, the money flows in at a steady level.

Yeah, but at least they HAD to upgrade to get the money. The subscription model is just a way to lay off all of the talented coders and push more money up to the top. It is a way to make money without earning money.

It might be beneficial for people who only need the software briefly, too. For example, if I have to make a scientific poster or something and I need Illustrator to do so, I could perhaps only pay for one month of it, make my poster, then remove the software.

From Adobe’s perspective, they must know that I’d never shell out $500 for something I’d need intermittently. However, I might give them $20 just to use it for a few weeks. It’s not a bad idea.

unfortunately PhotoShop has one of the steepest learning curves out there, almost anything is easier to learn and get proficient at than is PS. Infrequent users are really rare, since infrequent use makes it very difficult to master.

Me and my graphics team have it and it is amazing, you can also share projects over the internet and with each cloud you get 2 log ins, 1 for office and 1 for home or mobile. It is still cheaper than purchasing full suite then paying addtl to upgrade, here it upgrades on its own and you have complete access to all of the software

Adobe just finished bullying everybody about upgrades. Refusing to do upgrades more than one level up. Had to back down for a year on that.

Adobe my get a steady stream of income, however they will lose a large part of their following of formerly loyal pro-sumer users. Those people are a large part of their success and responsible for bring expensive adobe products into companies. When they find replacements they will take their business and the business of the companies they work for with them.

The pay/month for software model is a corporate fad. As much as software vendors would like to position themselves as utilities, they are not. They provide no continuous tangible services such as electricity, television or connectivity. The public will quickly realize this and seek alternatives.

The other problem is a falure in the pay/month economic model. The barrier to entry into the utilities markets is very high due to infrastructure costs. There is no such barrier in the creation of a ‘cloud software services’. This will promote rabid competition for similar services all over the world thus eliminating that product’s scarcity model, and driving prices to the floor. If Microsoft is half way successful with Office365, there will be a better product out of India that will cost 1/4th the price.

I love Photoshop and am pretty well up on the learning curve. However, my usage is too limited to justify such high expense.

Started out with the first full version of the CS suite. When CS4 came out, I chose to only upgrade Photoshop and stuck with the older CS3 versions of the other (seldom used) programs. When CS5 was released, I upgraded Photoshop only. With the CS6 release, I chose to stay with CS5. Just too costly for my limited utilization. Now comes the monthly subscription plan and I’m out, probably for good. I’ll stick with the CS5 version of Photoshop for as long as possible.

I will NEVER rent software. The way I see it, after renting it a few years, you will come to a point where you have paid more to rent it than you would have if you bought a perpetual license. How is that even remotely a good deal for the consumer? CS6 is the last version of PS for me.

Creative Suite has always been priced out of my range, which is why I held on to my student version of CS3 for so long. I don’t begrudge Adobe for switching to this model, but if they had priced the regular CS with the student pricing from the get-go, I would have been more willing to upgrade more often.

The math doesn’t work for a user of just Photoshop CS6. If you already own a copy of a previous Photoshop, the upgrade price is $199, and that can be discounted with membership of some photography groups. The alternative subscription price is $20/month ($10/month the first year). In 10 months you’ve paid $200 (ignoring the discounted first year), so everything after that is more expensive than the old upgrade price. Now, if you stop paying the monthly fee, you can no longer use that software. With a purchased copy of Photoshop, you can continue to use that version for as long as it still works for you.

For someone who is a pro, it makes more sense. They have a revenue stream that offsets the cost of the software fee. But, for the amateur/hobby user, it hurts them far more. Yes, they can keep using the CS6 software all they want. The problem is that eventually it won’t work anymore with a new OS or computer system.

What I’m hoping is that this will drive the competition to step up more and produce more competitive products with Adobe’s products.

The ridiculous prices for Photoshop drove me and my family to run OpenCanvas and Paint Shop Pro. Both were 50$ and both do everything Photoshop does, and a few things more. Anything PS has that the others don’t, I’ve never needed once in a number of years. Furthermore, Corel and PortalGraphics aren’t concerned that I bought a program a year ago and have just reinstalled it on a new computer — they comprehend that computers die and replacement happens.

I love Paint Shop Pro. It even uses many of the plugins for PS if you need something unusual. And unlike Photoshop, it’s mine from the start and I don’t have to pay for the program 12 times in 2 years.

Not going to participate in this or in Microsoft’s Office 265 scam either. For years I’ve been reading about plans by the big software companies to put people on a subscription model with no evidence provided to show why people who want to do that. All this is going to do is make people go ahead and look at alternatives with a serious interest. Gimp and Open Office (or Libre Office if you prefer) are about to get a whole bunch of new customers. The best advocates for free software are the companies that seem determined to drive their own customers toward it.

Microsoft will cave. It is a matter of time. Microsoft software isn’t that expensive.

Adobe, on the other hand might consider using both a subscription and a per-unit pricing scheme.

Why? Adobe products are expensive. We have three copies of Technical Suite in my department. $1800 a pop brand new. The upgrade is $1100. No one uses it every day, and it might be worth our budget to use their month to month plan ($99). Or we might use it more than that and pony up.

On the other hand, my wife is still using a Macromedia version of DreamWeaver I bought in 2002. She might benefit from using the “Creative Cloud” for $50 a month, or a newer version of DreamWeaver for $20.

There are several software packages out there that are almost as good as Adobe’s software for much less money. The problem is you get used to the commands and shortcuts in PS (my case) and using another program takes much longer since you have to find everything.

I have found Paint Shop Pro is no harder to use than Photoshop. Shortcuts may be slightly different, but using the mouse you can do everything you are used to doing. Some may feel differently, but I personally don’t see the need to keep identical shortcuts as justifying thousands of dollars out to Adobe.

My 1st version of PaintShop Pro (PSP) came free with a scanner; I think that was like ver3? when a digiatal camera ran about $30k… I’ve been using it ever since, now on 14 (aka X4). The only reason i ever considered (and tried) to convert to PS was to access the huge user community that PS has. PSP is smaller and less folks use it. But it does all I’ve ever needed (photo editing) and then some. It is truly the stealth editor out there. It has had a few disasters over the years (v8 was universally reviled) but overall it has served me well. I usually upgrade every-other release, and just before a new one is released the CD versions in stores drop to like $29 on clearance.

I’m still using CS3 for work – and it does everything I need it to. I’m not even scratching the surface of what it can do. There are a few features in CS6 that would be nice to have – but it’s so far away from reasonably priced that it’s just not going to happen. I wouldn’t have upgraded for at least two more cycles. There’s just no need, or killer functionality there. It’s just a “nice to have upgrade.”

It seems to me that this is going to limit their customer base. Those of us that don’t need to have CS, but like using it, will most likely move to something that is far more affordable. The few that do need to have CS, and can use it to it’s full capability, will be forced to move to this money-grab. My prediction: in 3-5 years there will be far fewer people using the Creative Suite. It’s going to turn into a boutique product that’s used by a tiny group of professionals.

I pay for a program. I own the rights to put that program on my computer, whichever computer it happens to be. I can run that same program for 20 years on that computer then. I can run that program without a network, riding on a bus or in a plane. I can run that program even in the darkest corner of the woods where even cellphones fear to go. I can even run that program long after Adobe has gone out of business.

But in the rental model, I cannot use THEIR program without THEIR consent, which requires network access and the continuing support for the rental model. The moment the net is down or the company decides to turn off the rental server, boom, your program ceases to work. When I pay for a program, I expect to be able to use that program. People are not always connected, I don’t always want the newest version (remember that horrible change to Office years back?), and your business is not always going to be around. Just sell me the product and take my money — if your future version is worth an upgrade, I’ll upgrade.

If you make it so I can’t use MY computer where and how I please, then I’ll find a different vendor.